How Do You Like Identifying Magic Items to Work?

[Morrus]

I used to be fairly anal about identifying magic items.

20 years later, I prefer to just tell players what it does in the interests of fun and playability. I realised that only the DM enjoyed the hoop-jumping inflicted on the players.

 

[nightwyrm]

The effort it takes to identify a magic item should be inversely proportional to the amount (and maybe importance) of magic items a party finds. Going through a lot of trouble (via research, trial-and-error etc.) to identify and use an once-a-campaign artifact is fun and exciting. Doing the same thing for the several dozen +X swords, armor, cloaks etc. that a normal party accumulates over the course of a campaign would be pointless and irritating. As for paying gold to ID magic items, that's just an annoying tax.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Mysterious magic speaks to me, so I rather like the idea of learning about an item through experimentation and research (skill check or something) over a period of time.

That said, I don't really consider a +X or the like to be "mysterious magic", so basic or obvious effects I just note from the outset. It keeps the bookkeeping MUCH simpler.

Exception: potions.

If you put in your mouth something you find in a filthy dungeon in some dead guy's hand, you should pay the consequences.

 

[Wormwood]

If it's an interesting item, a five-minute Arcana check is fine.

In general though, we just handwave such minutiae.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I used to be fairly anal about identifying magic items.

20 years later, I prefer to just tell players what it does in the interests of fun and playability. I realised that only the DM enjoyed the hoop-jumping inflicted on the players.

Describes me to a T.

However, when the PCs discover the Bracers of Dwarven Brotherhood, a minor artifact, there will be a little more to it. Yeah, it's a pair of Iron Armbands of Power and then some. They get the "and then some" from discovery/roleplay with the item.

 

[Jack7]

I favor Experimentation. And accidental discovery.
And research. And sometimes the help of magic.

On occasion though, during a intentional experiment I'll make an accidental discovery when my good looking Elven research assistant will tell me what she thinks I'm doing right and then I'll magically know.

I don't like it though when my Dwarven house maid tries to help. They smell like chicken to me.

 

[evildmguy]

I think details are the best and worst things about gaming.

Years ago, I wanted to compile a list of tastes, scents, viscosity, textures and other similar traits and then apply them to potions. Maybe apply some logic to them, such as healing potions being horrible tasting, like medicine back then, but good for you. Yet, poison being quite pleasing. Saying that a plant growth potion tasted like spinach and was gritty. Then, the point was that once they learned the list, they could do that on their own.

The problem was two fold. The idea was to create these details and try and help the characters guess what they had found. But once the players knew, ALL of their characters would know, unless I redid the lists for every group. Suddenly, as I am doing this list, what could be fun the first time, is going to drag on for every campaign after it. So then I have created a process that starts being tedious.

The other problem was that it was magic and I was applying logic to it. While I could make it that all type X potions looked and tasted the same, there is no reason to do that. The Dresden books have great examples of why potions would be different based on the person who made it.

In the end, I am usually bouncing a lot of things in my head about NPCs, where the PCs are and usually it's too much! The last thing I need is more to track when the players are pretty good about it. So, like Morrus above, after twenty years, I finally said forget it and started telling them everything so they would know what their character has, and then leave it up to the player on how they played the discovery. There are exceptions to this with artifacts or the like but otherwise it's just easier to tell them the game terms.

edg

 

[delericho]

In theory, I like the notion of the party having to research items, rely on Bardic lore, visits to sages, and the like.

In practice, it's a pain. For potions and scrolls, a Spellcraft check suffices, for most other items, an Identify spell is just the thing. That 100gp 'tax' is something I do continue to use, although there's no great reason to bother with it - I just haven't ever gotten around to taking it out.

I'm also inclined to think that there really should be a third category of items, somewhere between the 'utility' magic items and the very powerful artifacts (essentially, where Weapons of Legacy sat in 3e). Such items would reveal only their basic natures with Identify, and also reveal that there's more to learn. Then, the players get to decide whether to bother going to the hassle or not.

 

[Jack7]

The other problem was that it was magic and I was applying logic to it. While I could make it that all type X potions looked and tasted the same, there is no reason to do that. The Dresden books have great examples of why potions would be different based on the person who made it.

I wish more people understand that. Magic ain't all algorithms and rocket science. Sometimes it's a little less about knowing what you do and a little more about not knowing what you don't.

I'm also inclined to think that there really should be a third category of items, somewhere between the 'utility' magic items and the very powerful artifacts (essentially, where Weapons of Legacy sat in 3e). Such items would reveal only their basic natures with Identify, and also reveal that there's more to learn. Then, the players get to decide whether to bother going to the hassle or not.

Not a bad idea.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I don't like it though when my Dwarven house maid tries to help. They smell like chicken to me.

The worst thing about this is that I can't unread it.